We are here to provide an independent, rather skeptical view of events at Marquette University. Comments are enabled on most posts, but extended comments are welcome and can be e-mailed to jmcadams2@juno.com. E-mailed comments will be treated like Letters to the Editor.
This site has no official connection with Marquette University. Indeed, when University officials find out about it, they will doubtless want it shut down.

Wednesday, May 13, 2015

Obama: Hypocrite on Private Schools

This issue is typical of how liberals think. They condemn parents who send their kids to private schools, but send their own kids to private schools (or are ensconced in affluent suburbs were the public schools are quite elite).

They want to force the masses onto public transit, while they feel free to drive their Priuses wherever it’s convenient for them.

A few decades ago, they were supporting the massive busing of school children to achieve racial balance in public schools. But somehow, mostly black kids, and sometimes working class whites got bussed. The white liberals’ kids virtually never did.

They are strong proponents of “social justice” — imposed on other people by people like themselves.

4 Comments:

Most people on all sides now admit that bussing failed to achieve anythingbit setbout to achieve. Some think it was a sneaky attempt to pit the races againat each other so that they - the liberals- could maintain their dominant position.

A Catholic, E. Michael Jones, in his book The Slaughter of Cities: Urban Renewal as Ethnic Cleansing (St. Augustine's Press, 2003), argues that it was invariably the Episcopalians who slammed through housing projects in the 1960s and 1970s, intentionally placing housing projects in Catholic neighborhoods. Threatened by the rising power of Catholics as Italian and Irish immigrants began to catch up, they decided to destroy Catholic enclaves in Detroit, Philadelphia, and Chicago, in particular, by thrusting black housing projects into their well-functioning neighborhoods in order to destroy them. Episcopalian leaders argued that this was just their good intentions in action, but E. Michael Jones saw something sinister behind it. It was in fact will-to-power, ever-present, and perhaps not even known to those pursuing their sick agenda of using those on the bottom to destroy those who were about to catch up to them.

Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity on FoxNews are two of the Catholics who survived the onslaught and kept their viewpoint against the secularizing Episcopalian blitzkrieg.

One would like there to be more than will-to-power, based on Schopenhauer's notion of the ID. Maybe something like a communal super-ego, as articulated by the ten commandments, can be not only understood, but lived, by individuals. But how is one ever sure which is which? Demands for reparations, or feminist demands for parity, might be simply will-to-power. Denials of them might be the same thing. Even the idea of bussing people from one neighborhood into another might be a form of ethnic cleansing by destroying both neighborhoods, or forcing them into a desperate long fight/flight, and destroying any community they might otherwise have gathered. Divide and conquer.

The Episcopalian war-machine is the most secretive of all dominant rivalries within America. They came from England as an upper-class church, and never quite melted into the equality that America promised. They preserved hegemony. It's now psychological war, but it is going in any and every direction, and is severed in its unity. Episcopalians were always a broad church, creating an enormous strength, but it became divided from within over reparations, over the Civil War legacy, and now over gay ordination. They were a red-state group but they are now in the process of switching sides to blue.

No one knows quite who or what is behind Obama. It could be the Episcopalians, and their private schooling, running the show.

I think the argument that urban renewal was specifically aimed by Episcopalians at Catholics is rubbish. Of course I also think my claim that building I-96 in Detroit was an act of Mormon removal is rubbish. So is the claim that 8 mile was expanded in Ferndale with the intention to remove the cities black population and the claim that I-75 in Detroit (or more orecisely the Chrysler Freeway) was built to disrupt black livelihood. Even the claim that the Coleman Young admin leveled Poletown to get back for the I-75 incident is rubbish.

The fact of the matter is that the 8 mile expansion may have been designed to remove slum housing, but it was primarily an act to create needed traffic flow. In the case of I-96 leveling the only Mormon Church in Detroit at the time was not an intention at all. If a Catholic Church had been in the path they may have avoided it but I can not say for sure no Catholic Church was leveled.

In the case of Poletown the matter is more complex. Poletown was at the time one of the most racially integrated parts of Detroit. It was about half black. It was actually chosen primarily because it was by the old dodge main site but GM demanded more land. Why Young caved is because he was at heart a communist and the government taking from others was always appealing to him.